ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Where is the ad hominem?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution Observed
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Where's the insult?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
anything ad hominem - accusations of dishonesty, willful ignorance etc etc, those just keep underscoring the lack of any substantive argument
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Your quote mining has been called out many times before. Quote mining is a dishonest debating method.
Not only have those posters pointed out where you've erred in your arguments, they've also repeatedly pointed out how and why your quotes have been taken out of context. Many people have also pointed out that you never cite your sources when providing those quotes. But you just keep doing it, using the exact same quotes over and over as though nobody has seen them or commented on them before.
Is it an insult to call a spade a spade? Perhaps instead of complaining when people point out that your quotes don't quite capture the gist of the argument, you'd consider a different method of debate. One that's more honest in nature. I mean, do you think it's just some bizarre coincidence that so many people have noticed that when you quote someone it's often done in a way that misrepresents where the person being quoted is coming from? Or is it just that all these other people are being dishonest?
If you don't want to be called out for being dishonest, then maybe don't argue in such a dishonest fashion. That's all.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I directly quoted several paragraphs from Raup's paper, and linked the entire paper itself, to point out various conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology.
The reason nobody was able to show anything out of context in my quotes, is that the paper is titled conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology....
The problem is that people unfamiliar with the position of Raup and many other scientists, google the quotes, which brings up anti-creationist websites- and they take their context from there, rather than reading the scientific literature for themselves,. That's not dishonest, a little lazy perhaps! And this is where the confusion seems to be stemming from
So again I encourage you to read the paper for yourself if you really want to understand the context. The title does kind of give it away...but please do read on. Far more enlightening than name calling I promise you.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Oy. 
Raup and Eldriedge both fully endorse evolution. The rest is meaningless.
You selectively and unethically cited Raup. Conflicts between Darwin and contemporary paleontology is a given with the increase in evidence and research, and a meaningless dishonest Red Herring.
This accurately describes your unfortunate unethical and dishonest tactics in citing Raup and Eldredge who both support the science of evolution.
No problem, the whole paper in context makes you a dishonest hypocrite. Both Raup and Eldredge support evolution. That is a fact you cannot deny.
Yes, it underscores the lack of a substantive argument on your part.
I argue straight forward science. Both Raup and Eldredge support the scientific view of evolution, as well as 99%+ of all scientists in the related fields regardless of religious view.
if you wish to remove the ad hominum take mote from your own eye and deal with science as science.
They are valid under scoring the lack of a substantive argument on your part.
gnostic
The Lost One
not necessarily: and let me turn that around: biology developing according to pre-determined plans rather than random mutation, does not have to refute naturalism.
No more than physics developing according to QM rather than classical physcis did- the information can still hypothetically arise 'accidentally'- sure you might need some sort of infinite probability machine to overcome the odds- but that leap of faith has already been taken in multiverse theory for physics, why not for life? straining credibility a little too far?
Sorry, Guy, but not everyone (meaning the physicists) accept the Multiverse model, largely because it is still unresolved due to being UNTESTABLE.
Some physicists may accept the maths (proofs, hence mathematical equations), but others don't, because there are no verifiable evidences that there are more than one universe.
Multiverse model can only be proven, but not verified, observed or tested, but since the mathematical proofs are there (solution through solving complex mathematical equations), but "not testable", the multiverse model falls under the "theoretical physics".
As I am sure that I have to explain to you in the past, any field in physics is only has a scientific theory:
(A) if it is falsifiable,
(B) and if it can be observed (through successful repeated experiments or through discovery of verifiable evidences).
(B) and if it can be observed (through successful repeated experiments or through discovery of verifiable evidences).
Multiverse model failed in the most important requirement - point B, and that's why Multiverse is not a "scientific theory".
If the multiverse model failed to be testable, then it is not an accepted theory, therefore it isn't science, and it is not experimental physics, yet.
Normally when the hypothesis fail, eg "refuted" or "untestable", the hypothesis would normally be discarded, and deemed pseudoscience. But multiverse has one advantage that normally debunked hypotheses don't possess - the solution to the complex mathematical equation showed that the multiverse "is possible", if "not probable".
If the physicists can show that it is mathematically possible, by solving the equation (proofs), then the multiverse would fall under category of "theoretical physics".
Theoretical physics rely on mathematical proofs, not on observable and testable evidences. Theoretical physics also rely on "what is possible".
Experimental physics rely on observable and testable evidences (meaning being able to observe, detect, measure, quantify).
Where as theoretical physics rely on possibilities, experimental physics on the other hand rely on evidences to determine "what is probable" and "what isn't probable".
- So the more evidences physicists have, then the more probable their hypotheses or theories.
- But if the evidences go against the predictions and explanations, then the more improbable" are their hypotheses or theories.
But to go back on your point about Multiverse model:
- no, it isn't scientific theory, because it is untestable (no evidences);
- no, it hasn't been completely debunked, because it does have valid mathematical solutions (proofs), if NOT a physical reality that can be observed and verified;
- point 2, means it is a theoretical physics;
- and because of points of 2 or 3, physicists can still agree or disagree with its model.
Last edited:
There are a couple of physical "indicators" of the multiverse.
First are the apparent bruises on the CMB,
Astronomers Find First Evidence of Other Universes
Also Dr. Laura Mersini-Houghton et al have described swathes of our universe corresponding to the bruise(s)
moving contrary to the general universal inflation.
Both indicate a collision.
Note the "indicate". Much work needs to be done before it can be definitively stated.
This remains the best evidence at present.
This evidence is the weakest, and there have been alternative explanations for Dr. Laura Mersini-Houghton et al's conclusions. I watched the developments concerning these observations for some time.
These observations are supported by math models, but it remains that the multiverse lacks sufficient falsifiable evidence at present.
That was from WMAP data. The later Planck data doesn't support this. At least, that seems to be the consensus.
Blow for ‘dark flow’ in Planck’s new view of the cosmos
https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5090
That said, one researcher held back his name because he thinks the analysis of noise was faulty and could hide the flow.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6614
https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.4180
Hence my usage of indicators rather than evidence.
In still favour Dr. Mersini-Houghton's findings because they give reason to previously unexplained phenomena.
As you say, not enough evidence.
I'll just say well done and thank you.First, Eldredge believes in evolution.
Second your persistent misrepresentation of virtually everyone you cite. including Darwin and Dawkins, to justify your ID agenda is beyond unethical. The following clarifies Raup's views and your misrepresentation of his views with selective unethical citations.
From: On a Common Creationist Quotation of Dr. David M. Raup
Yes, Raup did say this (in "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29). Here is the quote in the immediate context (the quoted portions in boldface):
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. (p. 25, emphasis mine)
Note that while Raup says that some of the examples have been "discarded" he also says that others have only been "modified". For example the classic horse series Raup mentions is one of those that has been modified, but it is far from discarded. Also note that Raup clearly states that the pattern of the fossil record is one of change in living things over geologic time, something that young earth creationists deny.
And yes it has been taken out of context. The paper is about Darwin's mechanism of natural selection and whether this mechanism is reflected in pattern of the fossil record, not whether there is a lack of evidence for common descent. From the beginning of the article:
Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence form fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. (p. 22)
The transitions Raup seems to be talking about, in the quote creationists use, are mostly at the level of species or genera (like between a horse and a zebra or between a fox and a wolf). Not intermediates between higher classifications like between classes, orders, or families (between reptiles and mammals etc.), which are the ones creationists most object to. However it is these "missing" species level transitions that creationists (in ignorance?) often quote paleontologists talking about. This seems to be the case here as well:
There were several problems, but the principle one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another. . . (p. 23, emphasis mine)
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge are favorite targets for this creationist tactic because their hypothesis of punctuated equilibria is intended to explain why, from a biological point of view, we should expect species level transitions to be rare in the fossil record. Thus in their writings they frequently state the problem(s) they are attempting to solve. Creationists quote them stating the problems but not the solutions they propose. This seems to be the nature of the quote they have taken from Raup. The beginning of the very next paragraph after the one they quote tends to confirm this:
Now let me take a step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works. (p. 25)
He then moves on to the fossil record:
Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change too place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent. (p. 26)
He then goes on to discuss natural selection versus other possible explanatory mechanisms and how they might relate to the fossil record. He also discusses the effects of historical contingency as it relates to extinction pointing out that sometimes species may become extinct due more to "bad luck" than bad genes (this by the way is the basis for Raup's 1991 book Extinction - Bad Genes or Bad Luck?). Raup concludes this article stating:
The ideas I have discussed here are rather new and have not been completely tested. No matter how they come out, however, they are having a ventilating effect on thinking in evolution and the conventional dogma is being challenged. If the ideas turn out to be valid, it will mean that Darwin was correct in what he said but that he was explaining only a part of the total evolutionary picture. The part he missed was the simple element of chance! (p. 29)
Not particularly damning. Perhaps the more interesting question is where do creationists get the idea that lists of such (out of context) quotations are a valid form of scientific argument?
For Raup's views on creationist arguments I suggest you look up one or both of the following:
"Geology and Creationism", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Mar. 1983, Vol. 54 No. 3 pp. 16-25)
"The Geological and Paleontological Arguments of Creationism" in Scientists Confront Creationism (1983), Laurie R. Godfrey (Editor), pp. 147-162
I don't think his criticism is ad hominem. It is an honest reflection of what many of us see as what you are trying to do with Raup's work.
Questioning science is the duty not just of scientists but any person that truly wants to understand it and determine if it is worth acceptance. What you are doing doesn't seem to fit into the mold of questioning so much as taking Raup's work out of context to support your belief system agenda to show the theory of evolution is wrong. I appreciate your transparency even if you didn't intend it.
All I know of the multiverse is that there is a chance that in one of them, I'm in a strong, committed relationship with Scarlett Johansson. I can support anything where that is a potential possibility.
Not a surprise at all. 'Paranormal investigators' is not a title that qualifies as a scientist nor the falsifiability of hypothesis for the existence of ghosts. There never has been a falsifiable hypothesis for the existence of ghosts, because the evidence is anecdotal.
The consensus is scientists within the disciplines of science, and it is an overwhelming consensus of those that use the scientific methods established by Methodological Naturalism.
If no one claims to be a creationist 'Intelligent Design' is off the table.